Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 25, 2011 at 11:50pm

Virginia Steen McIntyre got her PhD on that dig down in Mexico.  She wasn't the lead on the site, she was a graduate student working under several other archaeologists.  Not all 3 dating techniques came to the same age, there was a wide range and she was adamant about going with the oldest one while the lead archaeologists felt the dating needed further review because of the discrepancy.  You should read what her colleagues have to say, the original papers produced by the various teams involved, and stop getting your science from a Charlton Heston documentary.

 

Java man was wrong, that's true, and Piltdown man was a hoax - both corrected for and both a big part of the reason that many scientists are far more methodical about dealing with new findings these days.  If you want to deal with any one of these claims, like how Steen-McIntyre destroyed her OWN career, pick one and I'll go dig up the sources for you.  I will ask, however, that you provide your sources as well, because it sounds to me like you've been watching too much youtube.

 

Scientists deal in science, not fairy tales or fantasy findings and that is not sad at all.  Most of these "forbidden archeology" guys are creationists who just like to pull up already debunked non-issues and make out like science is a big conspiracy.

Comment by Cleetus VonArbuckle on June 26, 2011 at 12:06am

@Robert Taylor Some can reject the totality of science unless it is some outsider with unaccepted, unsupported, beliefs that contradict every reasonable theory.  Ask yourself, how many times has someone working in their basement come out with a free energy machine?  They never do.  They never will.  The reason scientists treat these people as crackpots, is because they usually are, you just don't know enough of the science yourself to realize this.  Think about a subject you know a lot about, say, NASCAR.  If I claimed that NASCAR was a plot by Arab Sheiks to trick people into driving faster, therefore using more gas, you would wonder what evidence I had.  If I told you I had evidence, but couldnt show you or confirm it you would quickly call BS.  This is the case with the creation stuff.  There are cases when some scientists were wrong about some things but to say that science was not willing to evaluate data on its merits is absurd.  The reason we have the theory of evolution is because of the strength of the science.  It took a generation before that was the accepted biological explanation for speciation.  Humans do hold on to their understandings to long, on occasion, but that is an issue with humans, not science.

Comment by Robert Taylor on June 26, 2011 at 12:07am

Whew...did'nt mean to strike such a defensive chord.  Sounds like the same thing I've been discussing about "Don't do this", "Don't do that"..."do it my way see...I'm Rocco". It apparently is a matter of "votes" outweighing what a graduate student is saying.

  So, I guess I shouldn't hear out what a graduate student discovers...that just doesn't sound right.  As far as Charlton Heston and the video...again why so defensive.  I especially appreciated the facts about Glen Rose, the lifting of the strata, to discover more of the same footprints.  I don't accept the Xtians' view of man's beginning 6,000 years ago or what may be prevalent among certain segments of scientists sticking to 100,000 years ago.  Is it just the fact that it's Heston that bothers you? 

 By the way, it was Heston that came up with these discoveries.  It was others scientists that were discussed, some viewed, in the documentary.  Have you seen it? Again, have YOU seen it?

Comment by Robert Taylor on June 26, 2011 at 12:09am

"....it was NOT Heston that came up with these discoveries."  They need an edit feature on these comments...or "review", then "edit".

Comment by Robert Taylor on June 26, 2011 at 12:15am

Whew, I can see why I see so many frustrated comments here.  People just aren't capable of discerning what is written.  I NEVER advocated creationism...you know that so why try to put words into my words?  I'm an atheist and I view creationism as crackpot.  I don't know, maybe I should type s l o w e r and use small words.  I am NOT advocating anywhere a belief in creationism.  We all need to be open-minded though about we have been taught is true. 

Comment by Stephen Walski on June 26, 2011 at 12:24am

Being open minded is indeed a necessity of any rational thinking person.

 

However making statements like i dont believe scientific proof of DNA evolution does raise some eyebrows...

 

Im curious are you a molecular biologist or studying it? Was there a reason besides a summary video that you discount one of the factual portions of evolution that is well accepted?

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 26, 2011 at 7:39am

I'm not calling you a creationist, nor am I suggesting the Heston (a creationist) made up those claims.  Several of the 'scientists' quoted in that video are creationists, however, and some of them are not scientists.  It looks like I've hit the nail on the head as to which documentary you got your information from, however.  I've seen it (because I have a friend who is into such things) and I've investigated the claims made as well as several of the people.  McIntyre took her own path with the results, disregarding certain archaeological protocols, and still got her PhD from what she published.  It was her crusade to have a 60,000 year old pre-clovis civilization declared as canon that destroyed her career, though, and several of her colleagues have written about the issue.  Her publications were never 'buried' as she claims, it's just that no one took her seriously because of all the other information available about the site that actually did follow more conservative protocols.

 

Research some of the names in the video.  Those human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints have been debunked several times, and the main guy who advocated that interpretation was another creationist.  Just start doing some further research on what is claimed in that video and you'll find out how erroneous it is, if you actually want to broaden your knowledge of those claims.

Comment by Cleetus VonArbuckle on June 26, 2011 at 8:31am

I am skeptical of Robert Taylors claim that he is an atheist and, in fact, believe him to be a Christian.  He uses bold text and puts words in ALL CAPS.  I have other evidence if you are willing to hear it but I will probably just be silenced by the pro "Robert Taylor is an Atheist" powers that run this site.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on June 26, 2011 at 5:45pm

You don't need to be a creationist to fall for Robert Bauval or Zecharia Sitchin and, in point of fact, their work actually disputes creationism as well.  There are several best selling authors who make a lot of money off the fact that people like exciting conjectures that connect a wide array of observations (even if inaccurately) more than the boring dry reams of observations, math, and theory of scientific fields.  I am one of those people - I love reading about Mayan Mysteries or the Annunaki and Ancient Astronauts along with all sorts of 'forbidden' archaeology.  They make for really entertaining 'learning' and it's really fun to start looking up the credentials of the 'experts', 'scientists' and even 'institutions' that support the wild claims.  Digging through for the large volume of information missing from such write-ups makes me feel like Nancy Drew working on the mystery of the missing facts.

 

Anyway, all of these sorts of things are actually what I call the creationist propaganda of doubt.  They can't actually sell their story any longer so they do everything they can to undermine the credibility of science.  This is why you find people like Heston narrating lame-ass videos about "forbidden science" and occasionally they find a discredited/shamed scientist like Steen-McIntyre to parade in front of the camera lending credence to claims about scientific conspiracies.

 

All of that said, most of the people I run into who are into such videos and claims aren't actually creationists.

Comment by David W Yuhnke on January 22, 2012 at 4:08pm

It's extremely clear that evolution occurs in species. The lifespan of the common fruit fly is so short that it can be shown that characteristics occur randomly which are passed on to subsequent generations.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page